Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Guns do run out of ammo and vehicles do run out of gas in TOAW. It happens when the unit is "Unsupplied" and the gun or vehicle is eliminated by that condition.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: dicke bertha

I think it would be better if the scenario auto-generation wish were to be added to it, or at least measures taken to effect issues mentioned by golden delicious in posts 57 and 60 in this thread.

I don't see anything else in those posts. Be specific about what you want.

One needs to edit the calendar, the to-from turns in the replacement schedule, the arrival turns of units and the activation turns of events.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Fixing supply is going to take many, many updates. It's a non-trivial issue. 3.4 takes a first step only.

Having said that, most of the above is a misconception about what the unit supply numbers mean. A unit at 1% supply is not "out of supply". Guns do run out of ammo and vehicles do run out of gas in TOAW. It happens when the unit is "Unsupplied" and the gun or vehicle is eliminated by that condition.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



It's nice to see one's point so promptly illustrated. We can't make progress on the supply issue, because among other things, Curtis won't admit:

1. That supply for tanks, other vehicles, and artillery has a different dynamic than supply for infantry.

2. That supply for defensive purposes is a different matter than supply for offensive purposes.

3. That supply is volume-based. That is to say, the Germans could supply two divisions in North Africa well, or five badly. They couldn't supply five divisions as well as they could supply two.

4. That in fact there is anything wrong with the current system at all.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Fixing supply is going to take many, many updates. It's a non-trivial issue.

ORIGINAL: Telumar


What about one, non-trivial update instead of a dozen little ones? I for instance don't care about alpha channel or tool tips, menue delay etc... and i'm sure i'm not the only one here. But you may be the wrong adress here.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's nice to see one's point so promptly illustrated. We can't make progress on the supply issue, because among other things, Curtis won't admit:

1. That supply for tanks, other vehicles, and artillery has a different dynamic than supply for infantry.

2. That supply for defensive purposes is a different matter than supply for offensive purposes.

3. That supply is volume-based. That is to say, the Germans could supply two divisions in North Africa well, or five badly. They couldn't supply five divisions as well as they could supply two.

4. That in fact there is anything wrong with the current system at all.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Huh. So an artillery unit which is cut off and fires for ten rounds at 1% supply will disappear ten times faster than the same unit firing for just one round?

ORIGINAL: Panama

No, guns do not run out of ammo. An unsupplied unit may attack indefinately. And vehicles do not run out of gas. An unsupplied unit may move indefinately. Getting BLOWED UP does not constitute a supply condition. [8|]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Huh. So an artillery unit which is cut off and fires for ten rounds at 1% supply will disappear ten times faster than the same unit firing for just one round?

It's an abstraction, and you've just given an extreme case. Clearly, if they started at 100% supply, the one firing ten times would disappear much faster. Regardless, at 1% they're both going to be disappearing fast. Being unsupplied in TOAW is a bitch.

ORIGINAL: Raver508

Just reverting back the topic of this thread for a moment.

I'm up to turn 5 of a new game as the Soviets, playing Buzz's mod, and it does look very much to me like there are balance issues here. I have been more or less able to form a continuous line encompassing the historic stalin line going north through Smolensk, without too many problems at all. What's worse is that the units forming the line are all in very good readiness and supply shape. It seems to me that at the least the soviet units and especially reinforcement units should come onto the map in much worse state in terms of supply. Might be an idea to increase the number of negative shock turns for the soviets too, to try and simulate the general breakdown of order.

ORIGINAL: Raver508

Just reverting back the topic of this thread for a moment.

I'm up to turn 5 of a new game as the Soviets, playing Buzz's mod, and it does look very much to me like there are balance issues here. I have been more or less able to form a continuous line encompassing the historic stalin line going north through Smolensk, without too many problems at all. What's worse is that the units forming the line are all in very good readiness and supply shape. It seems to me that at the least the soviet units and especially reinforcement units should come onto the map in much worse state in terms of supply. Might be an idea to increase the number of negative shock turns for the soviets too, to try and simulate the general breakdown of order.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright




If you want to 'repeat history' why bother playing at all? The idea is to NOT repeat history if it will result in defeat. [;)]

One of the problems the Soviet had early on was one of training. That is to say, they had drilled offensive operations into their army. Very little attention was paid to defensive operations. So you ended up with things like AT guns placed at even intervals by the book with no regard to terrain or avenues of advance. The first period of the war (22 June 1941 to November 1942) was one of on the job training.

This offensive doctrine was evident in their strategic planning. They had intended to go on a general offensive upon being invaded. This was played out time and again with the results being what we have seen in the history books.

I don't see any way to force the Soviet player to attack. You can force him to defend areas or face defeat by losing too much turf too early. And if the Soviet units are deployed in the sorry state they were actually in then the outcome 'should' be different than what you see in FiTE. HOWEVER, big however, at the same time you have to do something about the Axis running rampant with no supply. Tanks should run out of gas in the red. Artillery should run out of ammo in the red. Trucks should roll to a halt. Unless you can model both sides in the way things would actually happen all will be for naught.

There was another reason that the Russians fought amateurishly in 1941. It has to do with the power of the unit political commissars to control or influence operations. A Soviet commander who failed to "fight by the book" was apt to end up in trouble for being some sort of "counter-revolutionary" and if he lost a fight while doing this he was practically certain to end up standing in front of a wall somewhere. I've always felt that, in some ways, Hitler's "Commissar Order" helped the Russians by killing off a lot of the political officers and temporarily reducing their effect on the Red Army - no proof, just a gut feeling.

I agree with much of what Panama had to say about equipment shortages for the Red Army, particularly in 1941. As to how to address these in FiTE, I'm not sure, short of going through every Soviet unit and individually adjusting the current equipment to reflect the shortages. I do agree with those who advocate making it more "expensive" for the Soviet player to simply abandon all of the territory the Soviets typically give up in a game. I suppose one way to partially offset that would be to allow the Axis player to not abuse the civilian population - thus greatly cutting down on the numbers of partisan units available to disrupt the already tenuous Axis supply lines.

I haven't read through this whole discussion yet, but if a group is forming to make mods to FiTE to better reflect the historical situation I'd be willing to participate as a playtester/debugger or whatever role might be needed.

For those of you who haven't yet read them I highly recommend checking out the recent work that David Glantz has done based on recently opened Russian archives. His writing is a bit dry, but he is making available a wealth of information that was not previously available to Western researchers. I've read his book on the Battle of Kursk - in which it becomes clear that the Germans came a lot closer to victory than has been generally recognized. Not that it would have done them any good in the long run - though Stalin may have been more open to a negotiated peace if the Red Army had taken a drubbing at Kursk. I'm currently working my way through the first volume of his Stalingrad campaign trilogy - which is very detailed and, again, shows that the Soviets were not in great shape during the summer of 1942. I expect that he'll end up showing that the counter-attack at Stalingrad was more of a shoestring operation than is known in the West and could have very well ended up suffering the same fate as Operation Mars did. Glantz has a lot of facts and lays them all out, but I do wish he'd learn how to "tell a story" while doing so. Just my opinion - YMMV.

Anyway, from what I've read so far it seems obvious that all of us like FiTE a lot. The question seems to be: how do we take FiTE as the base and modify it enough to be both more historically correct while also improving play balance? That said, has anyone contacted the team that put FiTE together in the form that we know and love it? Are they working on any mods themselves? Do they have any problems with another group building off of their base? Would they be willing to work with us to improve the scenario? It seems to me that the original group recognized (recognizes) that there are short-comings in their implementation - which is why they've put out several versions over the years.

FWIW, I think we need to focus on what we can change about the scenario - not worry about aspects of the TOAW game engine that we can't really do anything about, other than trying to minimize their effects.

Here's hoping I haven't stepped on too many toes,
Ron

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am with Panama. The Soviet OOB is ridiculously unrealistic.
- Just take a look at the starting oob and you will find divisions near the front that didn't even exist until much later. They sit ON the path where the Germans will advance, fortified.
- And the ones that did exist are also fortified and in good health, even nkvd units.
- The Mech Corps in Fite is a very powerful formation, whereas in reality it lacked mobility, leadership, supply and training.

So the German player has to fight a much larger and stronger Soviet West Front than was the case historically. And that's only in 41, which is supposed to be the easiest year to depict. Later we've got other problems, I don't need to repeat them, Panama has done it already.

A good first step would be to incorporate Daniel McBride's OOB for 1941 from DNO, which is almost 100% correct, and build on that.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: dicke bertha

While certainly many changes were built into T3, I am not sure they adressed the - in my view - most important issues with the game, e.g. supply.

From what I understand, supply is being addressed in the upcoming patch

After reading Ralph's blogs it is my understanding that the ability for a unit to receive supply is being modified. However, I don't see anything about what happens when a unit's supply is reduced to the point where it has used up what it has. They can still move almost as if there were an eternal motion engine in all vehicles.

In the real world tanks and other vehicles actually DID run out of gas. Guns actually DID run out of ammo. [X(]

In TOAW bullets and shells and fuel are manufactured on the spot by the units. This is one of the most glaring problems with the game. I really don't understand why it's not addressed.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. (except the science fiction parts. [:D])